Firefox for 64-bit Windows OS canceled

 

People who have been waiting patiently for Mozilla to launch a version of Firefox made especially for 64-bit versions of Windows looks like they may be waiting forever. Mozilla Engineering Manager Benjamin Smedberg has apparently made the decision to kill off development of the 64-bit Windows version of the popular web browser.

In a post on the Bugzilla development page written on Wednesday, Smedberg states, "Please stop building windows 64 builds and tests." He outlined his feelings on the matter in an earlier post on a Google Groups development board. Some of the reasons deal with plug-in issues, with Smedberg saying, "Many plugins are not available in 64-bit versions." He added, "The plugins that are available don’t work correctly in Firefox because we haven’t implemented things like windowproc hooking, which means that hangs are more common."

With development of a Windows 64-bit version of Firefox now halted, it looks like Windows users now have just Internet Explorer and Opera that support native 64-bit web browser versions for Microsoft's platform. While Microsoft continues to release both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Windows, the trend in the last few years has been for Windows owners to get the 64-bit SKU.

Via: The Next Web
Source: Bugzilla | Image via Mozilla

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nielsen: People want to get the iPad; Surface low priority

Next Story

We find a few Black Friday 2012 tech and software deals

120 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

"People who have been waiting patiently for Mozilla to launch a version of Firefox made especially for 64-bit versions of Windows looks like they may be waiting forever." This is absolutely terrible English. Nice work.

Lord Method Man said,
With IE10 running on Windows 7 there's really no point in using any other browser.

What was the point of the comment, granted IE 10 is better than IE 9 and is ahead of other browser in the HA Department. but still IE 10 is behind Chrome, Firefox, Opera. sorry IE 10 is not that good, maybe IE 11.

I don't even have Firefox (x32) on my computer. I haven't for years. I use Waterfox but who knows what will happen there. Well, if they all stop, not a big loss, I'll just choose another browser to use. Mozilla really needs new blood. They are fastly becoming irrelevant again.

hagjohn said,
I don't even have Firefox (x32) on my computer. I haven't for years. I use Waterfox but who knows what will happen there. Well, if they all stop, not a big loss, I'll just choose another browser to use. Mozilla really needs new blood. They are fastly becoming irrelevant again.

How is mozilla becoming irrelevant? why because they didn't do a 64-bit browser, 64-bit is not imporant at the moment. unless makes a 64 bit only OS. until then people can stick with the default IE 64 bit or go with the recent Opera 64 bit.

using firefox since... forever. And tbh, you dont really needs a 64bits browser. It does not impoves nothing. And are you planning to see a +4GB page?. Really?

Many people are under the illusion that 64bit can bring performance improvements over 32bit, it's a completely false scenario. The most 64bit can bring is more memory space, but considering Firefox's memory usage, we don't “really” need more than 2gb of ram.

This pretty much holds true for all 64bit vs 32bit programs.

Shorter version: People like to complain over stupid crap when they have no clue what they are complaining about.

Incorrect. x86 programs feature no processor optimizations. By going to x64, you can roll in *at least* SSE if not SSE2 by default, meaning performance gains. But yeah, for some reason, people keep thinking it's only about memory usage.

Firefox has never been a good browser. I have tried many versions over the years, and they have all sucked. I never understood why it was even remotely popular.

In the original post on Google groups, Smedberg states that

"It is also frustrating for stability team triage because crash-stats does not easily distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit builds in the topcrash lists and other reports. We basically ignore a set of nightly "topcrashes" because they are 64-bit only."

It seems to me he is almost saying they have to stop 64bit Firefox because there are too many people using it? It reminds me of an old joke where someone goes into a shop and asks if they sell a particular item. The shopkeeper replies "I've told at least 20 people today, there is just no demand for it"

Basically, yes. The core of the argument is that the 64bit builds for Windows were unsupported (The nightly builds were primarily for developers/regression testing)

Too many people were using an unsupported release, and filling their crash reporting list with bugs that weren't going to get fixed.

Just what the people want! Why adopt 'new' architecture and support it? Where is Netscape these days, I want to take a HUGE step back!

I guess that means that those of us running FireFox in Windows-7 64-bit will continue to have frequent crashes due to problems with very basic plug-ins--some of which are automatically installed when one installs Office or Adobe's Reader. Great corporate thinking!

I've been using waterfox (64 bit) for a while now, too. Works great. Every single one of my addons works fine, too. I'm also gonna wait until waterfox is declared dead by the dev before throwing it out. he's been working on it just fine.

Not sure what memory leak FF has. Some addons are known to cause leaks. My version of waterfox currently has 27 windows open and is using less than 1GB or memory. I don't care how long I keep it open (I routinely keep it open all day). It'll never get to 4GB or anything remotely close to that.

I like IE 64-Bit, because it is very smooth to use when I was on 64-bit of Windows Vista, 7, and XP before. I knew that FF has gone bad now, because of Flash player, and memory leak too.

This should be the other way around, why is there still 32bit software. Everything should have moved over to 64bit years ago. This is just pathetic.
I guess Waterfox will also stop development since they based their browser on the 64bit Firefox beta.

you can increase the speed better with improving the rendering engine and javascript engine than making a 64bit version. This makes sense cancelling it. Chrome announced in august 2008 that it would release a 64bit version "soon" btw, that was over 4yrs ago, clearly google agree that a 64bit version is counter productive, especially when the number of bug reports increase.

I have always been a user and defender of Firefox, but for the first time I am questioning my support. I have never had any issues with Firefox's 64-bit nightly builds. They worked with the 64-bit plug-ins that mattered. Only very recently were there some formatting issues.

I may need to hunt for Waterfox again.

Voice of Buddy Christ said,
I have always been a user and defender of Firefox, but for the first time I am questioning my support. I have never had any issues with Firefox's 64-bit nightly builds. They worked with the 64-bit plug-ins that mattered. Only very recently were there some formatting issues.

I may need to hunt for Waterfox again.


I have been too until they released a shitfox v4.0. Left FF since then.

Yay!

One fanboy based browser almost dead and gone!! Can't believe that all you people here have jumped bandwagons. What happened? You mean to tell me that if everyone doesn't think it's the coolest thing since the invention of the wheel, it's not good/cool?

Exactly why I don't pay much attention to what most of the people on this website suggest, when it comes to browsers and other software. I've always said that the only reason Firefox got to be as popular as it was, was the fact that so many here thought it was so cool and gave them a reason to bash IE. Exact same thing with Chrome. I never cared for Firefox, but Chrome is complete garbage, IMO.

Now, go get a decent browser like Palemoon or Waterfox or Opera or Seamonkey or SRWare Chrome, whether they're 64bit or not!!

cork1958 said,
Yay!

One fanboy based browser almost dead and gone!! Can't believe that all you people here have jumped bandwagons. What happened? You mean to tell me that if everyone doesn't think it's the coolest thing since the invention of the wheel, it's not good/cool?

Exactly why I don't pay much attention to what most of the people on this website suggest, when it comes to browsers and other software. I've always said that the only reason Firefox got to be as popular as it was, was the fact that so many here thought it was so cool and gave them a reason to bash IE. Exact same thing with Chrome. I never cared for Firefox, but Chrome is complete garbage, IMO.

Now, go get a decent browser like Palemoon or Waterfox or Opera or Seamonkey or SRWare Chrome, whether they're 64bit or not!!

Really dude.. when you post stuff like your comment here it makes you look foolish, Give the Anti-Firefox, Anti-Chrome rant a rest.

Edited by Sub_Zero_Alchemist, Nov 22 2012, 11:23am :

I don't know why I bother, but I do love revisionist. Like, I guess Firefox's rise in popularity had nothing to do with Microsoft stagnating IE by only updating it to new versions with each new OS release. Longhorn kept getting delayed, web standards kept improving, and IE's security kept getting compromised leaving the door wide open for an alternative. Enter Firefox. Once she started gaining steam, Microsoft about faced and started updating IE again.

But no, it only got to where it was because a handful of people from Neowin thought it was cool...

I think that this is extremely disappointing, not just as a 64-bit browser user but also as a statement of the structure of Mozilla. It might suggest some deficiencies in the way that Firefox is being produced.

If they are abandon development of an x64 native version, then what about an ARM version? Or ARM 64 or the new CPU technology that will replace that in xyz years' time?

It seems to me that this is more of a statement that the processes, procedures and development paradigms that they are using are not up to the creation of a scalable, portable platform (and / or that they are unwilling to migrate Mozilla applications to become so). Abstraction layer? Managed code?

Now, I won't pretend that I am a Mozilla contributor in making that statement, or that I understand all of the intricacies of what they have to do. I also appreciate that they have to try to continue to support legacy plug-ins for the likes of Firefox. Yet if they cannot work out how to create an x64 release 10 years after AMD64/EM64-T became commercially available and their solution to the problem is to ignore it… then I must admit to having some doubts about their staying power in an industry where hardware level change is only going to become more prolific.

My name is Moon. Pale Moon
I am using for a year or so palemoon browser 64bit and I am very pleased with its stability, speed and security. More details at their Project.

To clarify everyone has gotten this wrong.

Ben shutdown hourly and nightly builds.

They want to focus efforts on the i386 builds and other platforms for now.

Nothing has been canceled or killed, it has just been slowed down.

Shane Nokes said,
To clarify everyone has gotten this wrong.

Ben shutdown hourly and nightly builds.

They want to focus efforts on the i386 builds and other platforms for now.

Nothing has been canceled or killed, it has just been slowed down.

Yeah, reads like things have been slowed down... indefinitely...

Shane Nokes said,
To clarify everyone has gotten this wrong.

Ben shutdown hourly and nightly builds.

They want to focus efforts on the i386 builds and other platforms for now.

Nothing has been canceled or killed, it has just been slowed down.


The 64bit Nightly disappeared well over a year ago already from the standard nightly downloads page.
Its ridiculous since they have a 64bit Fx for Linux....
Nooo there's 3rd parties that do a much better job at providing a proper Fx build for Windows users.

And their excuse for plugins being a pain.... I have yet to find a single plugin that works on OOTB Fx that didn't work on Palemoon 64x.

I was hoping they'd make an official 64-bit version but this won't stop me from continuing to use Firefox. I used Waterfox for 8 months and decided to go back to Firefox because of some plugin compatibility issues. It'd be great to use a 64-bit browser but it isn't a requirement for me. I'm happy with the 32-bit version of Firefox and I hope that Mozilla will eventually make a 64-bit version.

Anaron said,
I was hoping they'd make an official 64-bit version but this won't stop me from continuing to use Firefox. I used Waterfox for 8 months and decided to go back to Firefox because of some plugin compatibility issues. It'd be great to use a 64-bit browser but it isn't a requirement for me. I'm happy with the 32-bit version of Firefox and I hope that Mozilla will eventually make a 64-bit version.

This is the best comment out of this thread. I totally agree with you, hopefully Mozilla makes a 64-bit version down the line, once the issues have been ironed out.

Internet Explorer is 64-bit by default on Windows 8 (whereas on Vista/7 it was 32-bit by default). If Microsoft think it's safe enough to do this then Mozilla and the rest could surely follow.

Arkose said,
Internet Explorer is 64-bit by default on Windows 8 (whereas on Vista/7 it was 32-bit by default). If Microsoft think it's safe enough to do this then Mozilla and the rest could surely follow.

As it was pointed out in another comment above, Internet Explorer 10 only defaults to 64-bit in these two scenarios: 1) You are running the WinRT (Metro) version, or 2) You have turned on Enhanced Protected Mode in settings. Otherwise, the desktop version defaults to 32-bit.

Anthony S said,

As it was pointed out in another comment above, Internet Explorer 10 only defaults to 64-bit in these two scenarios: 1) You are running the WinRT (Metro) version, or 2) You have turned on Enhanced Protected Mode in settings. Otherwise, the desktop version defaults to 32-bit.

Well, at least on my Windows 8 Pro intsall “Enhanced Protected Mode” is on by default.

Anthony S said,

As it was pointed out in another comment above, Internet Explorer 10 only defaults to 64-bit in these two scenarios: 1) You are running the WinRT (Metro) version, or 2) You have turned on Enhanced Protected Mode in settings. Otherwise, the desktop version defaults to 32-bit.
That was true for the Windows 8 preview versions but it doesn't seem to apply to the final RTM release. Internet Explorer 10 on the desktop runs as 64-bit on my end (Windows 8 Pro with Media Center, clean install) and I do not have Enhanced Protected Mode enabled (nor have I made any other IE configuration changes).

And when Windows finally, if ever, goes 64-bit only, Mozilla is going to wonder why Firefox is no longer a popular browser and has extremely low market share.

Asrokhel said,
And when Windows finally, if ever, goes 64-bit only, Mozilla is going to wonder why Firefox is no longer a popular browser and has extremely low market share.

64-bit Windows, runs (if not better) almost all 32-bit apps

Jose_49 said,

64-bit Windows, runs (if not better) almost all 32-bit apps

Correction: It runs all 32-bit applications. I have yet to come across one that it doesn't . If it won't install that's because it uses a 16-bit installer or some other 16-bit component. That's a hardware limitation.

shinji257 said,

That's a hardware limitation.

It isn't. All the latest x86 CPUs are compatible down to 80286 and will be for a long time still. Microsoft deliberately disabled 16-bit support in 64-bit Windows, because it is, however, a security risk.

Phouchg said,

It isn't. All the latest x86 CPUs are compatible down to 80286 and will be for a long time still. Microsoft deliberately disabled 16-bit support in 64-bit Windows, because it is, however, a security risk.

Incorrect. CPU's can't enter 16-bit real mode or virtual 8086 mode while 64-bit long mode is active.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Operating_modes
http://www.xylos.com/blog/post...n-64-bit-Operating-Systems/

I have a technical background with computers so I more or less know what I'm talking about.

EDIT: I'm going to make a clarification here before someone brings it up. 16-bit protected mode will work while 64-bit long mode is active however most 16-bit applications will expect real mode. This means that Microsoft has to emulate 8086 instructions. There is an abundance of emulation products already on the market and for this reason they dropped NTVDM support. This is mentioned in the blog article linked above.

Restrictions in 64-bit Windows OS: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282423

Edited by shinji257, Nov 22 2012, 9:51pm :

shinji257 said,

Incorrect. CPU's can't enter 16-bit real mode or virtual 8086 mode while 64-bit long mode is active.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86-64#Operating_modes
http://www.xylos.com/blog/post...n-64-bit-Operating-Systems/

I have a technical background with computers so I more or less know what I'm talking about.

I stand corrected.
Although I'd guess we all have technical background with computers here, it just happens that sometimes misinformation takes precedence.

Phouchg said,

I stand corrected.
Although I'd guess we all have technical background with computers here, it just happens that sometimes misinformation takes precedence.

Yup. The trick is weeding out that misinformation.

Why don't they do like Opera. Make a wrapper for the plugins ...

64 bit browsers isn't that much needed yet, but in the future they will be important. Since games and services will primarily be used in browsers.

x-byte said,
Why don't they do like Opera. Make a wrapper for the plugins ...

64 bit browsers isn't that much needed yet, but in the future they will be important. Since games and services will primarily be used in browsers.

Wrappers have to be done on a plugin by plugin basis... There is no universal wrapper. It can be buggy as heck if not done right.

OMG really?! There were so many obscure x64 test builds... why can't they just emulate 32-bit plugins on the 64-bit platform like Windows does WOW64 ?
The lack of any real innovation and performance issues were the main reason I stopped using Firefox despite a few years of actually recommending it to peers and installing it on serviced machines. Chrome has been more reliable in those areas.

netsendjoe said,
OMG really?! There were so many obscure x64 test builds... why can't they just emulate 32-bit plugins on the 64-bit platform like Windows does WOW64 ?
The lack of any real innovation and performance issues were the main reason I stopped using Firefox despite a few years of actually recommending it to peers and installing it on serviced machines. Chrome has been more reliable in those areas.

Because Windows doesn't actually 'emulate' anything.

netsendjoe said,
OMG really?! There were so many obscure x64 test builds... why can't they just emulate 32-bit plugins on the 64-bit platform like Windows does WOW64 ?
The lack of any real innovation and performance issues were the main reason I stopped using Firefox despite a few years of actually recommending it to peers and installing it on serviced machines. Chrome has been more reliable in those areas.

There is no emulation occurring in Windows. Windows created WOW64 as a means to overlap a system registry for 32-bit applications on top of the real registry so that all applications work properly. It does nothing of the sort. The processor (CPU) can emulate 32-bit calls (convert 32-bit calls to native 64-bit calls) however there is a limit. It can only go one generation back. So a 64-bit processor can only go back to 32-bit mode. It can't run even older 16-bit applications (which require an emulator at that point).

Now then as far as process space is concerned it must be all 32-bit or all 64-bit including any plugins accessing it. So a 32-bit browser can only run 32-bit plugins and a 64-bit browser can only run 64-bit plugins. There is no way around it and is a hardware level restriction. Not even Windows can change that.

P.S. - Firefox on Linux has a weird wrapper for 32-bit Flash so it runs in 64-bit Firefox. That wrapper is now obsolete but it doesn't work for anything else. It was also buggy and caused its own share of issues.

Some reference material on WOW64 --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW64

There's no emulation involved, because the x86 64bit CPUs we're used to, aren't "proper" 64bit CPUs, they're hybrids.

What that means, is that unlike a "proper" 64bit CPU (that can only execute 64bit code, like Itanium), the x86 variant can actually switch from 64bit back to 16/32bit and back again dynamically. 64bit Windows doesn't emulate 32bit system calls or code, it just throws the CPU back into 32bit mode before executing them, etc.

This simply doesn't make ANY sense. This reasoning is pathetic, like "we'll kill the 64 bit port because 64 bit plugins are sh*t... oh wait, that's because we didn't implement things correctly, or at all, on x64". WTF?

Also, exactly what 64 bit plugins does this guy miss, seriously?

And BTW, the Chrome dev team have just assigned their 64 bit version to a dev meaning it WILL come soon.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=8606

So now Firefox is the ONLY browser that's left. This is just another great move to alienate even more users.

bviktor said,
This simply doesn't make ANY sense. This reasoning is pathetic, like "we'll kill the 64 bit port because 64 bit plugins are sh*t... oh wait, that's because we didn't implement things correctly, or at all, on x64". WTF?

Also, exactly what 64 bit plugins does this guy miss, seriously?

And BTW, the Chrome dev team have just assigned their 64 bit version to a dev meaning it WILL come soon.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=8606

So now Firefox is the ONLY browser that's left. This is just another great move to alienate even more users.


LOL, as if users are alienated by a browser being 32-bit. Yes, we can absolutely see this is a problem for Chrome and Firefox today by checking the market share graphs and compare to Opera, the grand 64-bit browser...

bviktor said,
This simply doesn't make ANY sense. This reasoning is pathetic, like "we'll kill the 64 bit port because 64 bit plugins are sh*t... oh wait, that's because we didn't implement things correctly, or at all, on x64". WTF?

Also, exactly what 64 bit plugins does this guy miss, seriously?

And BTW, the Chrome dev team have just assigned their 64 bit version to a dev meaning it WILL come soon.

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=8606

So now Firefox is the ONLY browser that's left. This is just another great move to alienate even more users.

Right. The plugins need specific supports to work properly and they have yet to be properly ported over. It will take time. I take it that they will come back to it later on. I doubt they will kill it indefinitely otherwise they will fall behind eventually.

The chrome build will take a while to complete. Moving from x86 to x64 will take a while to complete. Even Google.

shinji257 said,

Right. The plugins need specific supports to work properly and they have yet to be properly ported over. It will take time. I take it that they will come back to it later on. I doubt they will kill it indefinitely otherwise they will fall behind eventually.

The chrome build will take a while to complete. Moving from x86 to x64 will take a while to complete. Even Google.

So how does not building for win64 help anything?

Northgrove said,

LOL, as if users are alienated by a browser being 32-bit. Yes, we can absolutely see this is a problem for Chrome and Firefox today by checking the market share graphs and compare to Opera, the grand 64-bit browser...

You're purportedly missing important points so I ain't gonna argue with you.

bviktor said,

So how does not building for win64 help anything?

Because many of the math functions change ranges. In some instances a function call that is part of the compiler moving from 32-bit to 64-bit may change and if that happens then the code reflecting it has to be changed to account for that. If any part of the plugin is coded in assembler it has to be redone for a 64-bit platform in many areas to account for increased numeric limits and other changes in assembly functions. If you think that recompiling for 64-bit is a simple task then go ahead and do it. Watch out for the 64-bit specific bugs that crop up as sometimes the checks and balances of the code that the developer put in doesn't work properly on that build.

The_Decryptor said,
Yes, the 64bit build is a fair bit slower.

Uses more memory too.

Was certainly the case with IE9. Haven't seen any benchmarks of IE 10 x86 vs IE 10 x64 though, and I know for a fact that IE 10 x64bit finally has a JIT compiler.

fpd said,
Is there really a perceptible performance advantage to a 64-bit browser?

Sticking with facts is that native bit applications operate more efficiently when ran on OSes of the same bit. There is a speed increase (actually the speed penalty is removed). It is more noticeable on larger applications. The main culprit is that the OS do not need to convert between 32bit and 64bit variables in order to process what is needed to be done. Aka the translation layer. With all emulations there is always a performance penalty. If the application was created in pure 64bit, there is no penalty.

The_Decryptor said,
Yes, the 64bit build is a fair bit slower.

Uses more memory too.

Firefox, slow and memory hog ?
Impossible....
/s

Still no Retina support… now they drop the 64-bit version. Really Mozilla? You give-up, you decided to live in the past? I'm installing Chrome

myxomatosis said,
Still no Retina support… now they drop the 64-bit version. Really Mozilla? You give-up, you decided to live in the past? I'm installing Chrome

You are aware that Chrome has even less support for 64-bit than Firefox, having never released a build? Their point was justified in the newsgroup discussion. A 64-bit version brings no tangible benefits and therefor is a lower priority compared to Firefox OS and a Windows 8 app. Retina support has also landed, and working it's way down from nightly to stable.

There is always Waterfox too.

myxomatosis said,
Still no Retina support… now they drop the 64-bit version. Really Mozilla? You give-up, you decided to live in the past? I'm installing Chrome

i dont there's a 64bit version of chrome

myxomatosis said,
Still no Retina support… now they drop the 64-bit version. Really Mozilla? You give-up, you decided to live in the past? I'm installing Chrome

I hate insulting people because I'm nowhere near perfect, but you, pal, you are really stupid. If small company decisions like this are able to change you mind on things, this just means you are very liable to manipulation.

And the most funny thing is, if you haven't read news like this, you wouldn't even know.

myxomatosis said,
Still no Retina support… now they drop the 64-bit version. Really Mozilla? You give-up, you decided to live in the past? I'm installing Chrome

Actually, there is retina support and 64-bit on the OS X version...

Russell Green said,

You are aware that Chrome has even less support for 64-bit than Firefox, having never released a build? Their point was justified in the newsgroup discussion. A 64-bit version brings no tangible benefits and therefor is a lower priority compared to Firefox OS and a Windows 8 app. Retina support has also landed, and working it's way down from nightly to stable.

There is always Waterfox too.

64-bit version brings tangible benefits.
I'm running WaterFox 64bit at home because the 4GB memory limit of firefox 32bit is not enough when browsing VERY large and long pages with a lot of images (think reddit with RES)

That plugins are not supported I seed as something good. Flash works and Silverlight works. Other than that i don't want any other plugins and now I don't have to go and disable them when some random software decides it wants to install some crap plugin.

The_Decryptor said,
By retina support I'm assuming you're on a Mac, in that case you're already using a 64bit build (This is only the 64bit Windows build)

Meph said,

Actually, there is retina support and 64-bit on the OS X version...

Unless you are referring to a development build the stable branch (currently version 23.x) is still 32-bit. I just checked my Mac Mini (which runs 64-bit Mac OS X) and it got a 32-bit version of Google Chrome running on it.

shinji257 said,
Unless you are referring to a development build the stable branch (currently version 23.x) is still 32-bit. I just checked my Mac Mini (which runs 64-bit Mac OS X) and it got a 32-bit version of Google Chrome running on it.

Huh? We're talking about Firefox.

Meph said,

Huh? We're talking about Firefox.

Sorry. I must of gotten distracted with the Chrome builds earlier... So yes the Firefox builds on Mac OS are 64-bit indeed.

Well, guess what: The default variant of IE you run on Windows is also 32-bit. You have to take an extra action to run the 64-bit variant. Which gives the message: "Who really need 64-bit browser?".

While I would like Firefox to have a 64-bit variant I have to admit there is little need for it.

Jugger.naut said,
Well, guess what: The default variant of IE you run on Windows is also 32-bit.

i believe that in win 8 it defaults to IE 64bit

EDIT: with that said i still think that 64bit web browser are overrated

Jugger.naut said,

While I would like Firefox to have a 64-bit variant I have to admit there is little need for it.

Exactly. And if you REALLY want a 64-bit variant of it you can always download WaterFox instead.

dafin0 said,

i believe that in win 8 it defaults to IE 64bit

The Metro/Modern UI/WinRT version of IE runs at the same bit level as Windows.

The desktop version of IE still defaults to 32 bit mode. In order to enable x64 support, you have to open "Internet Options (control panel) \ Advanced (tab) \ Security (category)" and then checkmark "Enable Enhanced Protected Mode".

As soon as you have enabled Enhanced Protected Mode, the desktop version of IE runs in x64 mode, and runs in the more secure sandbox environment that the WinRT version runs in.

mule said,
Why?!

Just laziness.

In several past weeks 64bit UX builds were crashing at start, so they are simply lazy to look into issues.

mule said,
Why?!

Too few benefits for too much work. It's not like 64-bitness of a browser is a deciding factor for performance or anything. Speed is affected much more by JS / DOM engine optimizations, and as for the memory cap, if it wants 4+ GB RAM, you have a much greater problem at hand than that it's a 32 bit browser.

Aethec said,

Not enough resources. They can't fix everything, so they "fix" bugs by removing functionality.

Porting a browser from 32-bit to 64-bit is a huge task. Not even Google has done it on the Windows side. You try it sometime and let me know how it goes. A proper port will account for the fact that all integer limits have been doubled (double the addressing space) + other factors.

Northgrove said,

Too few benefits for too much work. It's not like 64-bitness of a browser is a deciding factor for performance or anything. Speed is affected much more by JS / DOM engine optimizations, and as for the memory cap, if it wants 4+ GB RAM, you have a much greater problem at hand than that it's a 32 bit browser.

Yeah 640.. I mean 4GB should be enough ram for everybody

While it's probably not vital at this stage, it's a long task to get to 64bit and if they're giving up now it'll only cause trouble when the rest of the world is 64-bit ready. Just the last nail in the coffin for firefox.

GamesByJerry said,

Yeah 640.. I mean 4GB should be enough ram for everybody

While it's probably not vital at this stage, it's a long task to get to 64bit and if they're giving up now it'll only cause trouble when the rest of the world is 64-bit ready. Just the last nail in the coffin for firefox.

At this point I have a valid reason for needing more than 4GB of ram. I run virtual machines and since I want them to run as smooth as possible they usually get a healthy dose of ram along with their processor time.

GamesByJerry said,

Yeah 640.. I mean 4GB should be enough ram for everybody

While it's probably not vital at this stage, it's a long task to get to 64bit and if they're giving up now it'll only cause trouble when the rest of the world is 64-bit ready. Just the last nail in the coffin for firefox.

For games, virtual machines, photo processing and other business with large amount of images and videos you need at least 8GB.

For me 8GB is not enough sometimes.

Deranged said,
Glad I haven't used Firefox in years, heh.

And now I go fall asleep.

Same here. And it's good riddance as well. Wonder how much visible performance improvement can a "browser" make by going 64 bit....when lot of development related applications like Flash Professional are still 32-bit only!!

Mohitster said,

Same here. And it's good riddance as well.

Let's hope you're right about the riddance. A few hours ago I learnt about, and it was the final straw. I was avid Fx user for years. What bothers me mostly was that they plan to revert all users who have x64 installed to x86 SILENTLY! They won't even notice them! Personally, the x64 build was the reason I was using Nightly in the first place!...

So... I got a deep breath and uninstalled everything, Nightly/Stable/Profiles/Settings! Many minor issues of course, have helped into this decision. I set up the stable version of Chrome, I found all add-ons I was using to be available ( and in some cases even better ones ) and... I eventually joined the ride. Let's see...

I even uninstalled Flash, since, Chrome has the pepper version built it. Was a nice ride with Fx though. Especially lately without major issues. Chrome pushed the situation a lot, gave Fx a nice slap and forced Mozilla to wake. It's just the direction it gets that I'm not interested in. Fx mostly tries to achieve what Chrome has made well. So, why not go with the one that has all functions working more than fine. The "innovations" also, like Social API etc, I'm not interested likewise.

Edited by PC EliTiST, Nov 22 2012, 8:59am :

Mohitster said,

Same here. And it's good riddance as well. Wonder how much visible performance improvement can a "browser" make by going 64 bit....when lot of development related applications like Flash Professional are still 32-bit only!!

Well Firefox 64 bit could use more than 3.5 GB of memory... Isn't that a good thing?

Mohitster said,
Wonder how much visible performance improvement can a "browser" make by going 64 bit....when lot of development related applications like Flash Professional are still 32-bit only!!
64-bit may not give much performance boost but it can give a significant SECURITY boost, for example by greatly increasing the effectiveness of ASLR (more memory locations available). The plugins aren't going to be available for a browser that doesn't exist. They've got to FINISH 64-bit firefox before Adobe are going to put resources into actually supporting it. There is a 64-bit version of flash available for IE on Windows so it wouldn't be that difficult for Adobe to extend support to Firefox, IF they had a stable target.

PC EliTiST said,

Let's hope you're right about the riddance. A few hours ago I learnt about, and it was the final straw. I was avid Fx user for years. What bothers me mostly was that they plan to revert all users who have x64 installed to x86 SILENTLY! They won't even notice them! Personally, the x64 build was the reason I was using Nightly in the first place!...

So... I got a deep breath and uninstalled everything, Nightly/Stable/Profiles/Settings! Many minor issues of course, have helped into this decision. I set up the stable version of Chrome, I found all add-ons I was using to be available ( and in some cases even better ones ) and... I eventually joined the ride. Let's see...

I even uninstalled Flash, since, Chrome has the pepper version built it. Was a nice ride with Fx though. Especially lately without major issues. Chrome pushed the situation a lot, gave Fx a nice slap and forced Mozilla to wake. It's just the direction it gets that I'm not interested in. Fx mostly tries to achieve what Chrome has made well. So, why not go with the one that has all functions working more than fine. The "innovations" also, like Social API etc, I'm not interested likewise.


A better solution is Palemoon or Waterfox. These are actually build for windows.
The default Fx has all kinds of Linux or OSX specific crap still in its source before building.
Mozilla has never focused on Windows, their software has always performed allot better on Linux distro's then it ever did (or will) on a Windows system.
Screw you Mozilla, I haven't used one of your own builds for years now and with you guys officially canceling the 64bit version. I doubt I ever will.
Stop being so biased Mozilla.

mog0 said,
64-bit may not give much performance boost but it can give a significant SECURITY boost, for example by greatly increasing the effectiveness of ASLR (more memory locations available). The plugins aren't going to be available for a browser that doesn't exist. They've got to FINISH 64-bit firefox before Adobe are going to put resources into actually supporting it. There is a 64-bit version of flash available for IE on Windows so it wouldn't be that difficult for Adobe to extend support to Firefox, IF they had a stable target.

I was talking about the development environment "Flash Professional" and not Flash Player.

PC EliTiST said,

Let's hope you're right about the riddance. A few hours ago I learnt about, and it was the final straw. I was avid Fx user for years. What bothers me mostly was that they plan to revert all users who have x64 installed to x86 SILENTLY! They won't even notice them! Personally, the x64 build was the reason I was using Nightly in the first place!...

So... I got a deep breath and uninstalled everything, Nightly/Stable/Profiles/Settings! Many minor issues of course, have helped into this decision. I set up the stable version of Chrome

Wait, what?!! They dropped 64-bit and you went with chrome?!!!
If you want a real 64-bit browser, how about IE10, considering that now it has a 64-bit JIT and runs as fast as the 32-bit version.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinte...-bit-internet-explorer.aspx

PC EliTiST said,

Let's hope you're right about the riddance. A few hours ago I learnt about, and it was the final straw. I was avid Fx user for years. What bothers me mostly was that they plan to revert all users who have x64 installed to x86 SILENTLY! They won't even notice them! Personally, the x64 build was the reason I was using Nightly in the first place!...

So... I got a deep breath and uninstalled everything, Nightly/Stable/Profiles/Settings! Many minor issues of course, have helped into this decision. I set up the stable version of Chrome, I found all add-ons I was using to be available ( and in some cases even better ones ) and... I eventually joined the ride. Let's see...

I even uninstalled Flash, since, Chrome has the pepper version built it. Was a nice ride with Fx though. Especially lately without major issues. Chrome pushed the situation a lot, gave Fx a nice slap and forced Mozilla to wake. It's just the direction it gets that I'm not interested in. Fx mostly tries to achieve what Chrome has made well. So, why not go with the one that has all functions working more than fine. The "innovations" also, like Social API etc, I'm not interested likewise.

If your issue was that Firefox wasn't 64, why did you install another browser that isn't 64?

PC EliTiST said,

Fx mostly tries to achieve what Chrome has made well.

Eh? Come again? Go back to Go, do not collect 200 dollars, and check your chronology.

Shadowzz said,

...
Mozilla has never focused on Windows, their software has always performed allot better on Linux distro's then it ever did (or will) on a Windows system.
...

This is funny, since one of the main complaints against Firefox by the Linux guys, was that they focused more on Windows than they did on Linux (Linux is just not getting hardware acceleration that Windows and OS X have had for a while) You get the same argument from Mac users, that Firefox caters more to Linux or Windows than they do to OS X, etc.

It's almost as if people who don't like it, claim that they don't care about the system they use.

PC EliTiST said,

Let's hope you're right about the riddance. A few hours ago I learnt about, and it was the final straw. I was avid Fx user for years. What bothers me mostly was that they plan to revert all users who have x64 installed to x86 SILENTLY! They won't even notice them! Personally, the x64 build was the reason I was using Nightly in the first place!...

So... I got a deep breath and uninstalled everything, Nightly/Stable/Profiles/Settings! Many minor issues of course, have helped into this decision. I set up the stable version of Chrome, I found all add-ons I was using to be available ( and in some cases even better ones ) and... I eventually joined the ride. Let's see...

I even uninstalled Flash, since, Chrome has the pepper version built it. Was a nice ride with Fx though. Especially lately without major issues. Chrome pushed the situation a lot, gave Fx a nice slap and forced Mozilla to wake. It's just the direction it gets that I'm not interested in. Fx mostly tries to achieve what Chrome has made well. So, why not go with the one that has all functions working more than fine. The "innovations" also, like Social API etc, I'm not interested likewise.

Your post makes almost no sense.

1) This will likely only affect those using official x64 builds. Go over to one of several x64 custom builds that others are/were doing and they won't be "updated" to x86

2) You are using a development branch. You get what you get. Google does this on ChromeOS all the time with their dev branch. They went to x64 for a while then switched back to x86 later on to many disappointed individuals. (EDIT: This particluar bit with ChromeOS may of only affected the CR-48 version of ChromeOS. They cited stability reasons.)

3) The developers have a perfectly valid set of reasons to kill/backburner x64 development. Porting an app from x86 to x64 isn't always as simple as recompiling for an x64 target. Many things have to be ported over manually so that plugins may work properly in the first place.

4) Uninstalling Flash is overkill. Many external applications may depend on it too. I've come across a few in the past (which caused problems with updating Flash in general).

5) Chrome will always use it's own Flash even if a system Flash is installed because it is custom built for Chrome in itself. It implement's Chrome's sandbox support which the site version doesn't have.

6) Chrome is still 32-bit. So if you were looking with switching to an official x64 browser then you are stuck with Opera and Internet Explorer (as someone else already mentioned). Before you say otherwise I just verified that and the process had *32 next to it indicating it was running in 32-bit mode.

7) Last but not least at the present moment there is no need to migrate to a 64-bit browser yet. The mass majority of plugins are still 32-bit only including the ones for security software and many 64-bit ports are still in development. It is never an easy or fast jump. The only plugins that I'm immediately aware of that support x64 is Microsoft Silverlight, Oracle Java, and Adobe plugins (Flash, Reader, ect.)

Mohitster said,

Same here. And it's good riddance as well. Wonder how much visible performance improvement can a "browser" make by going 64 bit....when lot of development related applications like Flash Professional are still 32-bit only!!


IE10 seems to be proper 64 unless you specifically load the 32 bit version.

For the first time ever, I'm happy to be using IE.

Deranged said,
Glad I haven't used Firefox in years, heh.

And now I go fall asleep.

Ever since version 12.6; Firefox has consistently crashed under Windows-7 64-bit; even with "mandatory" add-ons/plug-ins installed by other applications, i.e., MS Office, Adobe Reader, etc. What good is FireFox if one has to disable or not install any add-ons?

eddman said,

Wait, what?!! They dropped 64-bit and you went with chrome?!!!
If you want a real 64-bit browser, how about IE10, considering that now it has a 64-bit JIT and runs as fast as the 32-bit version.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ieinte...-bit-internet-explorer.aspx

I said my problem is mostly that they are going to revert x64 users to x86 quietly, without even a warning -along with other minor issues. I didn't say it must certainly be x64 browser.

Also, IE10? Brah, please... It's unusable. Have you seen the font-rendering on IE10 ( Windows 8/Desktop version )? They used the same blurry, ugly font-rendering as on Metro interface... It's not like IE9 on Windows 7 this time. You can't do anything to fix the fonts. The fonts are fixed and I respect my eyes. IE10 on Windows 7 will be much better, because it will be using the same font-rendering as on IE9. For instance, if a website doesn't fully support IE9 font rendering, you can press "Combatibility Mode" and everything will be fine. You can't do the same on Windows 8 -insane, I know.

PC EliTiST said,

Also, IE10? Brah, please... It's unusable. Have you seen the font-rendering on IE10 ( Windows 8/Desktop version )? They used the same blurry, ugly font-rendering as on Metro interface... It's not like IE9 on Windows 7 this time. You can't do anything to fix the fonts. The fonts are fixed and I respect my eyes. IE10 on Windows 7 will be much better, because it will be using the same font-rendering as on IE9. For instance, if a website doesn't fully support IE9 font rendering, you can press "Combatibility Mode" and everything will be fine. You can't do the same on Windows 8 -insane, I know.

What video card / display do you have? I find cleartype much better in ie than any other browser.

spudtrooper said,

What video card / display do you have? I find cleartype much better in ie than any other browser.

That's the problem, IE10 desktop version on Windows 8, does not use cleartype settings. It has its own, fixed font rendering. Are you on a small laptor or tablet? Then the problem is not so apparent. I'm talking for normal PCs and normal resolutions ( 1920x1080 ).

http://social.technet.microsof...1124-4e1c-9cc0-3b2acfd519dd

http://social.msdn.microsoft.c...de74-4044-940e-76e35a3e76b9

Mohitster said,

Same here. And it's good riddance as well. Wonder how much visible performance improvement can a "browser" make by going 64 bit....when lot of development related applications like Flash Professional are still 32-bit only!!

It is not about that. Someday I'd like to live in an entirely x64 world, without having windows have to support a WoW node. So, F-U Mozilla. If it weren't for the great extensions, firefox would be DEAD.